nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Game By Neil strauss

Steo1885

Hi guys, new to boards, just moved to dublin from mayo. read the game by neil strauss a few months ago and was wondering if anybody here has read it and what do they think?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Chancer3001

This discussion have veered ever so slightly off topic!

Mate of mine met up with a pua boot camp in Chicago. Cost a few thousand to join.

Silly.

Just read the book and go practice for free. He even wrote a step by step guide follow up.

There's also a female version of the game - called the rules

Wibbs

Just a (very)quick google and the American model at that, but I'm half a bottle of Rioja in so apologies P...

Link

pharmaton

yeah , had a feeling it would be American. Whatever way you look at it, one parent families are not the cause of men being crap with women.
(but it is an unsurprisingly AH response to the issue)

Fox_In_Socks

pharmaton wrote: »

yeah , had a feeling it would be American. Whatever way you look at it, one parent families are not the cause of men being crap with women.
(but it is an unsurprisingly AH response to the issue)

That's a bit of leap.

pharmaton

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

That's a bit of leap.

I thought so too.

General General

titan18 wrote: »

Did you just post this so we'd all lose the game.

F`CK IT! F`CK IT! It didn't click 'til you f`cken posted that f`cken post. F`ck ye! :pac:

F`cken 7 or 8 weeks, I think.

F`ck it.

Wibbs

pharmaton wrote: »

yeah , had a feeling it would be American. Whatever way you look at it, one parent families are not the cause of men being crap with women.
(but it is an unsurprisingly AH response to the issue)

Ah here. Even now 3/4 of a bottle into a damn fine Rioja, that smells like a copout. No one, least of all me said it was down to single mums making men "crap with women". Smells also like subjective thinking. I was merely suggesting it as one factor that might make a difference in a multifactorial* environment. As for your pic, damn near any statistically dodgy issue, one can find successes and outliers. It doesn't mean they're the ideal.

*I have to say that's a right c*nt of a word to type out when a bit vinoed up.

nocoverart

amazingemmet wrote: »

I've never understood this attitude to Irish women. I've always found them to be generally very approachable, easy to start a conversation with and generally up for a laugh on nights out.

Irish Women are horrific things! should be exterminated from Planet Earth

Banned

pharmaton

Candie wrote: »

Like almost everything, I expect the reasons for the crisis in masculine identity is multi-factorial. More men are being raised in female-headed single parent households which affects the role models available for men and boys, in two parent families the marriage is more partnership modelled than breadwinner/dependents, the concentration of male dominated work environments has remained roughly the same but with the industry focus changed (less construction but more programming etc), young men can't look to past generations on how to function within society because the make up of authority has changed to reflect a greater gender equality, and as such the old ways of bolstering male empowerment and confidence are defunct.

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah here. Even now 3/4 of a bottle into a damn fine Rioja, that smells like a copout. No one, least of all me said it was down to single mums making men "crap with women". Smells also like subjective thinking. I was merely suggesting it as one factor that might make a difference in a multifactorial* environment. As for your pic, damn near any statistically dodgy issue, one can find successes and outliers. It doesn't mean they're the ideal.

*I have to say that's a right c*nt of a word to type out when a bit vinoed up.

It's quite clearly stated above, it's not like the old days when women were women and men were men.

ironically Candie's first post states the subject of The Game is to free men of blame when they fail to attract a woman, and then goes on to lay the blame at the feet of one parent families and the resulting lack of male role models and the effect gender equality has had on society.
I'm sure it would be much easier for men to get laid if all us women were running around in flowery gowns and being nicely subdued for our menfolk.
I do despair.

(lets just blame the womens anyway)

Balaclava1991

I read The Game and The Mystery Method and a few other related books tried out some of their techniques and had a lot of fun chatting up loads and loads of women which I had never done before and probably wouldn't have done if I hadn't read them.
I didn't need to read them in the first place and I don't need them now.
All I needed to know and I didn't before was I just needed to get over my fear and relax and take a chance and talk to women.
That's all there really is to say.
You can only learn by trial and error how to behave around people - what makes them like and dislike you, attracted to you or not and what can work for one person doesn't necessarily work for another person - but I do agree there is a pattern to how men and women go from the first hello to the first kiss to getting it on and there is no harm knowing a few basics especially if you were completely clueless and this was preventing you from having relationships and driving you to sadness, depression and despair.
I can't though imagine how sad someone would have to be to actually pay thousands to be shown how to chat up women.
The guys who actually pay these guys must be really sad and need help.

Wibbs

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

All I needed to know and I didn't before was I just needed to get over my fear and relax and take a chance and talk to women.

Yep. It seems to come as a shock to some, but women look in the mirror the same way men do and have the same insecurities(if not more). They're just people. I know, mad or wha? Women are people with their own shít goin on? I mean WTF? How does that work then? :eek:

They're just as daft/clever/grounded/neurotic/interesting/dull as fuq/attractive/god no/unsure/sure as the bloke looking in the mirror wondering why he's left out of the loop.

nocoverart

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

I read The Game and The Mystery Method and a few other related books tried out some of their techniques and had a lot of fun chatting up loads and loads of women which I had never done before and probably wouldn't have done if I hadn't read them.
I didn't need to read them in the first place and I don't need them now.
All I needed to know and I didn't before was I just needed to get over my fear and relax and take a chance and talk to women.
That's all there really is to say.
You can only learn by trial and error how to behave around people - what makes them like and dislike you, attracted to you or not and what can work for one person doesn't necessarily work for another person - but I do agree there is a pattern to how men and women go from the first hello to the first kiss to getting it on and there is no harm knowing a few basics especially if you were completely clueless and this was preventing you from having relationships and driving you to sadness, depression and despair.
I can't though imagine how sad someone would have to be to actually pay thousands to be shown how to chat up women.
The guys who actually pay these guys must be really sad and need help.

I just hope you done all this without that balaclava on.

Balaclava1991

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep. It seems to come as a shock to some, but women look in the mirror the same way men do and have the same insecurities(if not more). They're just people. I know, mad or wha? Women are people with their own shít goin on? I mean WTF? How does that work then? :eek: They're just as daft/clever/grounded/neurotic/interesting/dull as fuq/attractive/god no/unsure/sure as the bloke looking in the mirror wondering why he's left out of the loop.

Well when someone is lonely and insecure they become self absorbed and that obvious fact is not so obvious. So a poor guy stuck in that way of thinking misses out on so many opportunities. If I only knew what I knew when I was younger I feel sure I would not have made some terrible mistakes. There are women I knew then who are married with kids now and I sometimes think what if I had behaved differently and then I think about girls I was once obsessed about and chuckle to myself about how I dodged a bullet! LOL

Balaclava1991

nocoverart wrote: »

I just hope you done all this without that balaclava on.

I didn't wear the flying googles either.

Pug160

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh most certainly, but again(jesus that's getting old :)) IMHO a bad father can often be a better bet for a son(s) than an absent one.

Even if that were the case, it would depend on just how bad the father is. Most people - no matter how detestable - usually have some good points. But an exceptionally bad father (or mother) can cause profound psychological damage. The sort of damage that can never by shaken off in its entirety. Any sort of bullying for example, whether it's by a father or mother, can have very detrimental consequences. If by ''bad'' you mean a father with no sinister elements - just a man who goes out and drinks a bit too much or has the odd affair - then yes, that may not affect kids too much. But there are good, bad and quite frankly ugly. And a lot in between. I'll take a decent single parent any day.

Diemos

Candie wrote: »

PUA seems to be a sort of system where socially incompetent men get to blame something else for their lack of success. It teaches them to approach more women by dehumanising them and reducing them to targets, gives the guy a script to work to and from, and if it fails, it protects their ego by giving them something to blame other than themselves upon rejection. Thus protecting their confidence and giving them the courage to approach another woman. And another. And so on.

I've seen these guys in action, found them sleazy and unattractive.

That was the complete opposite of the message I picked up from the book, when I read it, admittedly years ago.
The book describes a major division among the group when some of them decide to take the approach you mentioned above. The story as I picked it up didn't end all that nicely for any of the guys involved. I ended up feeling sorry for them rather than inspired by them. They discovered that if they are more confident in themselves they attract more women but they saw it as something more and dressed it up as a pseudo science. I did think it was an interesting read though and I did use small bits of it to change how I approached girls and it did help.

Daqster

Jaysus you all must eat a lot of Chicken Burgers in Ballina, as I see McDonalads have even named their new Chicken Burger after you all.

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep. It seems to come as a shock to some, but women look in the mirror the same way men do and have the same insecurities(if not more). They're just people. I know, mad or wha? Women are people with their own shít goin on? I mean WTF? How does that work then? :eek: They're just as daft/clever/grounded/neurotic/interesting/dull as fuq/attractive/god no/unsure/sure as the bloke looking in the mirror wondering why he's left out of the loop.

Nah, sure all men look at themselves in the mirror and think they're God's gift, everyone knows that.

Pug160 wrote: »

Even if that were the case, it would depend on just how bad the father is. Most people - no matter how detestable - usually have some good points. But an exceptionally bad father (or mother) can cause profound psychological damage. The sort of damage that can never by shaken off in its entirety. Any sort of bullying for example, whether it's by a father or mother, can have very detrimental consequences. If by ''bad'' you mean a father with no sinister elements - just a man who goes out and drinks a bit too much or has the odd affair - then yes, that may not affect kids too much. But there are good, bad and quite frankly ugly. And a lot in between. I'll take a decent single parent any day.

It was pretty funny watching the Sopranos (spoilers ahead :P ) with my sister and when the psychiatrist is listing the sociopathic characteristics of Tony's mother we kept exchanging glances. :P Dad on the other hand just has a few obvious annoying habits that are obvious within 5 minutes of meeting him. Aside from overt abuse or "diagnosis" by proxy through counselling and the like it's just assumed mothers are a positive factor simply by being around.

Wibbs

pharmaton wrote: »

It's quite clearly stated above, it's not like the old days when women were women and men were men.

ironically Candie's first post states the subject of The Game is to free men of blame when they fail to attract a woman, and then goes on to lay the blame at the feet of one parent families and the resulting lack of male role models and the effect gender equality has had on society.
I'm sure it would be much easier for men to get laid if all us women were running around in flowery gowns and being nicely subdued for our menfolk.
I do despair.

(lets just blame the womens anyway)

TBH that's a bit of a paranoid way to look at it. If anything I blame the men and wider society.

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

I can't though imagine how sad someone would have to be to actually pay thousands to be shown how to chat up women.
The guys who actually pay these guys must be really sad and need help.

Thinking more on this I'm getting a little bit of the sniff of gender hypocrisy about this. Yes I think the majority of PUA stuff is guff dressed up as a method. And I think it can lead to well dodgy thinking among some young men. However there is the "these sad men looking for self help solutions" and that has more than the touch of "why don't they man up" about it.

On the other hand the vast majority of self help books and seminars are consumed by women. Men are from Mars women are from Cork, how to get and keep a man, how to make a relationship work, how to get him to propose, the rules, women who love too much, women who dont love enough etc etc blah blah. It could well be argued that most of these books are half truths and nonsense dressed up in flim flam, just like PUA. A passing alien perusing a book shop might well come away with the conclusion that women are neurotically obsessed with diet, romance and getting and keeping a man*. Yet this is apparently OK, but not if you happen to be a man. It's akin to the oul sex toys gender split. For a woman to buy a rubber mickey that vibrates this equals an empowered modern woman taking care of her pleasure and exploring her sexuality. However for a man to buy a rubber fanny this equals a sad bastard. If a guy meets a woman and on their first night together she displays a range of french ticklers, he's expected to be cool with that, even encouraging. That's fine, now imagine the same scenario with the sexes reversed...

So while I personally think PUA is largely nonsense and can even be detrimental and obsessive to some, nonsense dressed up as self help is not even close to being a male issue, but men alone it seems are sad dopes for buying into it.

*and men are obsessed with cars, guns, explosions women and six pack bellies.

Balaclava1991

Although much of PUA is marketing to sell books and an obviously ploy to relieve lonely souls of their money by con artists nobody can dispute that human courtship is a subtle step by step process.

I think the zoologist and behavioral scientist Dr. Desmond Morris describes the stages in human intimacy very accurately:

1. Eye to body.
2. Eye to eye.
3. Voice to voice.
4. Hand to hand.
5. Hand to shoulder.
6. Hand to waist.
7. Face to face.
8. Hand to head.
9. Hand to body.
10. Mouth to body.
11. Touching below the waist.
12. Intercourse.

He writes that long lasting relationships are more likely if there is a slow progression over a long time - starting with the establishment of a strong friendship and emotional intimacy before sexual intimacy. Many people get together with childhood sweethearts or people they went to college or work colleagues who they gradually came to know and then gradually fell in love with before consummating their relationship.

However men who can rapidly seduce women can establish profound emotional and sexual attraction in women with minutes and hours while a man who is shy and less physically attractive would only be able to achieve with great difficulty over a longer period of time or else never.

Women are resistant to a rapid seduction - they will get annoyed when a man misconstrues friendship for permission to ask her out or a kiss for permission to grope her breasts etc. Some men clearly can smoothly go from hello to the bedroom in a very short space of time and get a woman who is prudish to act out of character. Women have a natural evolved hesitancy because in the past before modern medicine pregnancy was literally a death sentence for many women. However women do like to be swept off their feet from time to time but usually only on a holiday or for a spur of the moment fling. Rarely would a rapid seduction become the basis for a long lasting relationship.

Clearly some men have an evolutionary advantage in looks and social intelligence which means they have a greater likelihood of having sex with large numbers of women while other men may have only one sexual partner in their entire lives. However when it comes to motherhood women naturally want to have a male partner who is dependable and assists them in raising the children. This is where a man who is kind, loving and sincere has an evolutionary advantage over men who are selfish womanizers. Women are therefore more likely to choose nice men to be the fathers of the children.
Which is why ultimately most women fall in love with men for their personality and not their looks.

The romantic cluelessness and helplessness many men experience when trying to find a woman probably has evolved over time to prevent men from seducing and impregnating multiple women and producing unwanted children that would not be able to survive.
Human beings like all other animals and plants are simply machines created by genes which they use to replicate themselves.
Our physical appearance and functions as our personalities and our behaviors are all the result of a long long long process of evolution over vast numbers of generations.

pharmaton

I should write a book on how to attract women once I figure out how I do it. I think it's my voice, they just throw themselves at my feet and beg me to turn them. So I do.

Wibbs

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Although much of PUA is marketing to sell books and an obviously ploy to relieve lonely souls of their money by con artists

OK but as I've pointed out why aren't isn't the vastly bigger market of self help books aimed and consumed by women not considered as marketing ploys designed to relieve lonely women of their money? Given the comments here about men who buy into this PUA stuff, can you imagine if someone was to say similar kinds of things about women who buy into self help books? I suspect uproar.

He writes that long lasting relationships are more likely if there is a slow progression over a long time

This is clearly inaccurate. Damn near victorian in notion. So old stylee courtship is where it's at? Ah c'mon. Really? Many many long term relationships have kicked off after one night stands, or meeting a complete stranger in a club and playing drunken tongue tennis. I'd warrant far more than have kicked off from being friends first(for any length of time).

Women have a natural evolved hesitancy because in the past before modern medicine pregnancy was literally a death sentence for many women.

More selective pressure for hesitancy is down to women having a much smaller potential number of offspring, plus as you say she has to carry the child to term and then provide for it, so she has to be more choosy. She can only have 10-20 children tops, whereas the record for men is in the hundreds(A large percentage of east Asian men have genes that appear to come from Ghengis Khan. In Ireland a large chunk of men from the north have genes from Niall of the nine hostages).

However when it comes to motherhood women naturally want to have a male partner who is dependable and assists them in raising the children. This is where a man who is kind, loving and sincere has an evolutionary advantage over men who are selfish womanizers. Women are therefore more likely to choose nice men to be the fathers of the children.

Yes and no, or it seems to be more complex than that. Over the course of our evolution the genes show that most mens lines died out and that a smaller group of men had more access to reproduction. Plus a fair few studies have found women are attracted to different types of men depending on their reproductive cycle/fertility. IE at ovulation they prefer men with more masculine faces, with more testosterone, whereas while pregnant or not ovulating they favour men with less masculine faces. It seems deep down in the brain there is a selection to reproduce with very masculine men, but have the less masculine men raise offspring. It's way more subtle than that when you also add in the provider aspect(more the case in the past of course). You even see reflections of this in literature. In Lady Chatterly's Lover, the woman is married to the weak but rich and powerful lord who will provide a stable environment for her and any children, but she's actively knobbing the vigorous gardener.

The romantic cluelessness and helplessness many men experience when trying to find a woman probably has evolved over time to prevent men from seducing and impregnating multiple women and producing unwanted children that would not be able to survive.

I seriously doubt it, ultimately it's the woman's choice. It's a sellers market evolutionary speaking. Plus what about those men who don't have any, or much cluelessness and helplessness? If this trait was selected for by women there would be far fewer of them and they wouldn't be getting the reproductive advantage of access to more women than the wallflowers. Makes little sense TBH.

Reekwind

Wibbs wrote: »

OK but as I've pointed out why aren't isn't the vastly bigger market of self help books aimed and consumed by women not considered as marketing ploys designed to relieve lonely women of their money?

Surely most people would agree that the entire genre is marketing guff? The Game and its ilk get flak (from both sides, ironically) because of their rather regressive and puerile attitudes towards sex. Something that can't really be levelled at the latest fad diet book or The Rules, probably the closest female counterpart

Vitaliorange

Reekwind wrote: »

Surely most people would agree that the entire genre is marketing guff? The Game and its ilk get flak (from both sides, ironically) because of their rather regressive and puerile attitudes towards sex. Something that can't really be levelled at the latest fad diet book or The Rules, probably the closest female counterpart

What aspects of "The game" do you find puerile?

Also keep in mind the seduction community is completely different now to what it was circa 2001-2002 during the events of "The Game". Back then convoluted scripts and routines were the base of game. Now its much more natural.

You say its marketing guff, but a lot of it works if applied intelligently.

Balaclava1991

Wibbs wrote: »

OK but as I've pointed out why aren't isn't the vastly bigger market of self help books aimed and consumed by women not considered as marketing ploys designed to relieve lonely women of their money? Given the comments here about men who buy into this PUA stuff, can you imagine if someone was to say similar kinds of things about women who buy into self help books? I suspect uproar.

Ssssssh!:eek: Don't let the women know!

More selective pressure for hesitancy is down to women having a much smaller potential number of offspring, plus as you say she has to carry the child to term and then provide for it, so she has to be more choosy. She can only have 10-20 children tops, whereas the record for men is in the hundreds(A large percentage of east Asian men have genes that appear to come from Ghengis Khan. In Ireland a large chunk of men from the north have genes from Niall of the nine hostages).

In the past when mankind lived in small bands the opportunity to have sex was extremely limited. There might be only a handful of female within the tribe who would be potential mates. If a man fluffed his approach and is publicly humiliated that was it! It was only when mankind started living in large towns and cities that sexual promiscuity became possible which around the same time when religions began and adultery and chastity became major preoccupations and taboos were obeyed on pain of death.

Yes and no, or it seems to be more complex than that. Over the course of our evolution the genes show that most mens lines died out and that a smaller group of men had more access to reproduction. Plus a fair few studies have found women are attracted to different types of men depending on their reproductive cycle/fertility. IE at ovulation they prefer men with more masculine faces, with more testosterone, whereas while pregnant or not ovulating they favour men with less masculine faces. It seems deep down in the brain there is a selection to reproduce with very masculine men, but have the less masculine men raise offspring. It's way more subtle than that when you also add in the provider aspect(more the case in the past of course). You even see reflections of this in literature. In Lady Chatterly's Lover, the woman is married to the weak but rich and powerful lord who will provide a stable environment for her and any children, but she's actively knobbing the vigorous gardener.

Psychopathic men are often prolific womanizers.
This is probably a evolutionary throwback to the time of hunter gatherers when resources were limited and men had to live much more by their wits than today. They had to kill other men and act on impulse and without regret and their only options were to steal women or rape them or fool them into sex when they were already taken by other rival men.
When farming was discovered and human populations grew and people no longer roamed far and wide for food and started living in towns and cities, with law and order and religion, the domesticated man flourished but the wild man or psychopath died out or else put on the mask of sanity to blend in among the herd.
The psychopath gene still exists and pure psychopaths who are extremely independent minded, resourceful, prey on human weakness, who have no fear, act on impulse and have no regrets about their actions roam like wolves among the sheep. These individuals are adept at lowering a woman's defenses. Violent psychopaths kidnap and murder women but most psychopaths are not violent but lie cheat and fool women.
They have the evolutionary disadvantage of not being trust worthy and women have evolved their defense mechanisms to counter them.
Romantic love and the idea of one true love has existed for thousands of years and this means men seek out virginal sweet hearts and women chose knights in shining armor.

I seriously doubt it, ultimately it's the woman's choice. It's a sellers market evolutionary speaking. Plus what about those men who don't have any, or much cluelessness and helplessness? If this trait was selected for by women there would be far fewer of them and they wouldn't be getting the reproductive advantage of access to more women than the wallflowers. Makes little sense TBH.

A man who is disciplined, studious, works hard, is dependable and a good provider he will be an attractive candidate for husband and father material.
Women do not want their man to stray although you would like to cheat themselves from time to time with a lothario.
Women can forgive physical infidelity but not emotional infidelity.
A man who has struggled all his life to climb the promotion ladder is also likely to have struggled to get accepted by women and this kind of man believes in the ONE.
Men will forgive emotional infidelity but not sexual infidelity.

A lothario or psychopathic man who is only after one thing and who could have numerous sexual encounters with women is not a dependable father figure. He has to evolutionary advantage of being handsome, physically attractive, has the natural gift in seduction etc but he has a evolutionary disadvantage in his lack of interest in settling down.

Talib Fiasco

I have read a bit of The Game and loved it in terms of a story, Strauss is a great writer but as far as the content and stuff, complete sh*te.

I remember a friend of my brothers telling me one time when I was down after a breakup and was scared sh*tless talking to women again that I can hold a convo with any lad easily, make them laugh, make them feel comfortable and can charm and impress them with my life etc. He said therefore you've everything to talk to any woman and have a chance with her....it made so much sense.

I'm only a young fella still but what I see is that guys of this generation put women on such a high pedestal that they completely freeze and obviously a woman won't be attracted to a guy who thinks he's inferior to them. Maybe this 'PUA' stuff is a way of breaking down those barriers that come up as soon as a nervous guy sees an attractive woman. It's fine to get nerves, everyone does but I still go talk to her even if I'm nervous.

I think if people who were interested in the PUA stuff focused instead on fixing their look, becoming more confident and learn some social skills (public speaking, body language, how to be funny etc.), that's all one should need. Screw techniques or whatever they're labelled.

Reekwind

Vitaliorange wrote: »

What aspects of "The game" do you find puerile?

You mean, aside from the distillation of human interaction into a series of manipulative mechanisms (complete with ridiculous terminology) to get someone laid?

Wibbs

Reekwind wrote: »

Surely most people would agree that the entire genre is marketing guff? The Game and its ilk get flak (from both sides, ironically) because of their rather regressive and puerile attitudes towards sex. Something that can't really be levelled at the latest fad diet book or The Rules, probably the closest female counterpart

While not concerned with sex of course one could suggest that much of the self help stuff for women is puerile too, but it does get less flak than the PUA stuff.

Way back in the day when I was one of the Personal Issues forum mods, we started to see PUA stuff popping up and me being me did some background on it. Yes some of it was utterly risible in mindset, hence the talk of techniques and such got banned from the forum PDQ, but what interested me were the men buying into the whole thing. Yes you had the guys looking to score the notches in their bedposts, but a fair few were more about finding a social outlet and support system of likeminded men, which seemed to be not in their "real" world lives. There was also an awful lot of living vicariously through stories of "successes" by the older, more experienced "guru" types. While many were social and women phobic and that's why they signed up, many were coming from relationships where they had been dumped and were looking for ways to get her back, or ways to get "back in the saddle". On a couple of forums(whose names escape) there was a fair amount of support for men. I saw guys clearly emotionally hurting being advised and geed up by other members. Behind the surface hard sell of negs and AFC's and all that shíte I found it interesting from the social point of view. That so many men apparently needed such a place where men could talk with men and that the PUA bullshít was more of an umbrella for support and self help.

smurgen

I hate this pick up artist bullsh8t, it's so contrived and forced and puts even more pressure on men. I'd imagine it does work but will you even have a shred of dignity left by the end of it?
I'm no expert with women but I've been the shy person and the "confident" person and have had various relationships through the years. I'm from a single parent family and my father was missing for years at a time from my life. I never really had confidence anyway, maby this was a factor I dunno. When I was younger and extremely shy I had zero interactions with women except for my mother and sister.As I got older I got slightly more outgoing. I had two girlfriends in my time I got through college and both were lovely girls. Both also came onto me. I went out with one for two years and another for three.

When I left college I emigrated and spent some time single. I felt desperate and realized that women weren't just going to fall on my lap like before so I actively tried to be more confident and forced myself to talk and approach them on nights out etc. I had lots of one night stands but nothing much as regards relationships.

Now I'm single again and I honestly don't care anymore. Doing the whole proactive about it, superficial confidence thing for me seemed to attract superficial women and I want something more real. I honestly prefer being my own shy self even if it means being alone for good. In the mean time I'll focus on my career,health and having fun.

Balaclava1991

Reekwind wrote: »

You mean, aside from the distillation of human interaction into a series of manipulative mechanisms (complete with ridiculous terminology) to get someone laid?

Whether it is a sleazy guy who is only pretending to be what a woman wants to get her into bed or else he is a sincere man who has found the love of his life, they both have to follow a set pattern of behaviors which have evolved overtime. Studies show that human courtship is essentially the same across the world in all times and all places. Human body language is universal and women respond to verbal, chemical, visual and physical signals.
Human beings are no different from any other animal species and our closest ape relations have courtship rituals that are very similar to humans.

I have been with a few women and like any other man who has experienced some success with the opposite sex, I have learned what works and what doesn't. If I could go back and time and tell my past self what mistakes I should have avoided and what signals I should picked up on I would.
If I ever have a son I am going to teach him how to pick up women to spare him the heartbreak I went through before I became comfortable talking to and approaching women.

Obviously if you want to be happy in life you should be aiming ultimately for a permanent relationship with a woman and looking forward to being a good husband and a good father. You will NEVER get there unless you learn by trial and error how to attract a woman and how to progress from hello to sex and romance. If there is guidebook to get there and you can learn from the experiences of other men then why not? No relationship is without some degree of deceit and manipulation.